Sandwichman wrote: > "It is sometimes argued that _____1_____ is necessary to cushion the > impact of the loss of jobs due to _____2_____. Claims that _____2_____ > will reduce job opportunities are based on the false premise that > society has only a fixed number of things to be done or a limited > variety of products to be made and workers in excess of those required > to meet these needs will be idle. > > "Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. People's > _____3_____ are unlimited; it is only our capacity to _____4_____ that > is limited by our ability to ____5______."
1. downsizing 2. automation 3. wants / desires 4. satisfy wants / desires 5. produce However, Sandwichman forgets about the money. Without money, neither can consumers satisfy their wants, nor can producers produce. So it is absolutely central to look at who controls the "printing", allocation and (re)distribution of money --> Predators (NOT "nation states" as such!). The unemployment problem can only be solved by solving the money problem. --- Keith Hudson wrote: > Today in the UK only about half the population (at the > most) is needed to keep the economy going by daily work Your definition of "keep the economy going" is much too narrow. Maintaining a fairly good environment and society is also necessary to keep the economy going, but the former requires a lot of activities that are not profitable so "don't exist" in neo-con economics. (Recycling, enviro clean-ups, sustainable design, etc. -- note that these activities can practically NOT be automated!) How to fund these activities without money is a problem, even when you have lots of "unemployed" people at hand to do it. Because to do it, you have to fund their working materials, tools, training, organization, and of course their wages above unemployment pay (if any!). > What is not bearable in any society that > wishes to call itself civilized (with a reasonable chance of ongoing > stability) is the growing number of those young who are not educated enough > to be able to enter the increasingly specialized job sectors and thus force > job-sharing on those who earn a decent income. ... > Now that we are beginning to acquire knowledge of optimum brain development > it is monstrous that the present quasi-monopolistic imposition of the > nation-state on education continues any longer. Until parent-choice in > education is allowed -- just as much as they are allowed to choose most > goods and services -- then any discussion about the nature of jobs, today > or tomorrow, is academic. Your internal contradiction is that private schools are so expensive that only rich parents can afford them. You could amend that by giving grants to highly talented poor kids, but then what do you do with the big remainder of untalented poor kids -- leave them in even worse public schools? Private schools _increase_ the gap. What's needed is sufficient funding for good public schools. And most of all, addressing and correcting the root causes of poor skills: Malnutrition and toxins from junkfood, drugs and pollution. However, your neo-con leaders move society in the opposite direction, for their own short-term profit maximization. The bottom line is that both Sandwichman and Keith are off the mark for the solution of FW problems, because they are confused by Predator PR from tweedledee and tweedledum, respectively. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
